Can 15 floors crush one floor?

[DGM]

Well I guess that it is still just a matter of opinion. And that's all I'm saying. None of it has been proven on either side of the issue.

Some people, on both sides, are just asserting to be right.

Do you have an opinion or are you just repeating what you've been told?

What exactly is YOUR problem with the current explanation? Simple enough question.

 

[Profanz]

Do you have an opinion or are you just repeating what you've been told?

What exactly is YOUR problem with the current explanation? Simple enough question.

What I've been told? Told by who? People from here?

My problem is that the crush up crush down is still debated because no one really knows for a fact what happen that day based on what was witnessed.

No one can really make sense of it.

 

[Bell]

What I've been told? Told by who? People from here?

My problem is that the crush up crush down is still debated because no one really knows for a fact what happen that day based on what was witnessed.

No one can really make sense of it.

A lot of people make sense of it. It is just the truthers that can't get the facts through their skulls.

 

[Profanz]

A lot of people make sense of it. It is just the truthers that can't get the facts through their skulls.

I disagree. As do many.

 

[Bell]

I disagree. As do many.

That's your right. Doesn't mean you *are* right.

 

[Profanz]

That's your right. Doesn't mean you *are* right.

Fine.

 

[DGM]

What I've been told? Told by who? People from here?

My problem is that the crush up crush down is still debated because no one really knows for a fact what happen that day based on what was witnessed.

No one can really make sense of it.

No one who? I understand it. You keep acting like this is not an understood event. This is simply not true. Do you think the USG had a responsibility to educate everyone in structural engineering so they could understand?


What don't you get?

 

[Profanz]

No one who? I understand it. You keep acting like this is not an understood event. This is simply not true. Do you think the USG had a responsibility to educate everyone in structural engineering so they could understand?


What don't you get?

I'm not acting like anything. This thread was started still debating this issue. Instead of attacking me give your assertions and version of events on 9/11. Crush up or crush down? And why.

And if you do? Someone will come by and assert why you are wrong or the government reports that you point to.

That's all I'm saying. Stop attacking me.

 

[DGM]

I'm not acting like anything. This thread was started still debating this issue. Instead of attacking me give your assertions and version of events on 9/11. Crush up or crush down? And why.

And if you do? Someone will come by and assert why you are wrong or the government reports that you point to.

That's all I'm saying. Stop attacking me.

I can't figure how asking you to clarify your statement is "attacking you".

If you don't know why you think it has not be "adequately explained", fine.

 

[Illuminist14]

In my view, its not a straight forward collapse. However when the bottom floor of the top section hit the uppermost floor of the bottom section, it was always going to be too much for that floor to resist, I know the floors have a FOS of around 3 I believe, but the fact it was a dynamic force being applied to the lower section, overwhelmed it and caused a chain reaction, as each floor under that was overwhelmed with more force than the last one.

I don't think I've seen any valid explanations as to why the building should not have collapsed as it did. I know there is arguments about how the building offered little resistance. Which when you think about the gains in momentum each floor was really not going to put up much of a fight in the collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

That amount of ignorance displayed in a few short sentences is unbelievable

what does Tony believe occurs when columns buckle and fail, especially when the structure is tilted even 1 degree?

 

[jaydeehess]

Okay, you shamed me into addressing the OP, but first I have to help the question to be more relevant. It should really be asking

Can 15 floors crush one beneath them designed to hold up at least 45 floors?

My answer is: sure they can if they fall from a distance and decelerate sufficiently in the impact to generate an amplified load great enough.

Really? You expect that one floor pan could support the static load of 15 times the load on one floor?
That it could support that mass coming down at any velocity??

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I expected you dodge, but didn't expect you try such a LAME dodge.


Right.

You claimed:

"they (the 15 floors) can (crush 1 floor) if they fall from a distance and decelerate sufficiently in the impact to generate an amplified load great enough"​

So how much is that momentum (or velocity, or kinetic energy, or equivalent freefall distance) , and what deceleration would be sufficient?

"I don't know" would be an acceptble and respectable answer. In that case you could at least explain HOW you know that some (supposedly finite) distance (momentum) and deceleration is sufficient to do that! (And perhaps suggest a way to determine those numbers; and perhaps you know if someone in the engineering literature has already done that calculation?)


Well, I think it is supported by the observation that almost all perimeter columns didn't buckle before they had peeled away from the floors.


I think it has been proven, and is easy to prove, that this misalignement is far more than sufficient to significantly decrease the alignment. How on earth are the buckled lower column ends EVER going to find another column to perfectly align with, after they have lost contact with the bit of lower "block" column that they were previously connected to? That idea seems quite preposterous.

(And by the way: It is so easy to show you are wrong: 1 degree of tilt around a pivot on one facade means about 1 cm (63 m x (1-cos(1°)) ) of misalignement of perimeter columns on the opposite face. Ho thick were the perimeter column plates around the 95th floor? Who do you think you are fooling?)

Prediction: Tony will reply to the questions in parentheses, if at all, not the ones he previously dodged

First, transfer of momentum requires a deceleration on the part that is transferring it. There is no deceleration in the North Tower's fall measurement.

The deceleration required for a gravity driven collapse would have been at least about 3g's.

Finally, the difference in length with the 207 foot wide face tower section with a 1 degree tilt would have been (207) - (207 x cos of 1 degree) = 0.0315' = 0.378". The initiation occurred in the North Tower at the 98th floor and the perimeter columns were 14" square with 7.5 mm webs and flanges at the 97th floor with spandrel beams behind them. The core columns were larger in most cases and would have had less misalignment since they were closer to the north face fulcrum. There clearly would not have been any misalignment significant enough to cause them to miss each other. The lateral inertia of the upper section would keep them aligned. So the only way it could happen is with enough tilt, which can be shown not to be there. Those who say the columns would have been misaligned have nothing technical to back what they say. They are actually talking out of something other than their mouth.

 

[NoahFence]

What I've been told? Told by who? People from here?

My problem is that the crush up crush down is still debated because no one really knows for a fact what happen that day based on what was witnessed.

No one can really make sense of it.

I know for a fact what happened.

So there's one....

 

[DGM]

The deceleration required for a gravity driven collapse would have been at least about 3g's.

Explain what sequence of collisions you used to arrive at this figure.

With a tilt I would think this would be difficult to predict.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not acting like anything. This thread was started still debating this issue. Instead of attacking me give your assertions and version of events on 9/11. Crush up or crush down? And why.

And if you do? Someone will come by and assert why you are wrong or the government reports that you point to.

That's all I'm saying. Stop attacking me.

 

[uke2se]

I have yet to see a twoofer offer up a "yes" or "no" answer to the OP. Perhaps this is why the "movement" has failed so spectacularly?

 

[femr2]

Jeebus.

I know many of you folks have discussed the ROOSD mechanism on many occasions.

So why are you walking down the "block head" route...again ?!

There's not really an "upper block" impacting a floor below. 1D virtual simplified nonsense.

There's no rigid "upper block" either.

There's no reason to expect "jolts" to be recordable at the roofline. (Though by miracle/excellent tracing methods...a couple of "mini jolts" were found many many moons ago)

There's no way for vertical columns to experience any axial impacts. More 1D virtual nonsense.



And for the "record" early ROOSD mechanism testing indicated (via use of simple 1D inelastic collision models no less) that simply the mass of 3 OOS regions (not the core, not the perimeter, just the OOS floor and contents) dropped through a single storey height...would be enough to initiate a ROOSD-type propogation...to ground...



Not all this is for you Tony, but remember it was you who helped determine the energy requirement to shear the OOS region from its supports, so ...


Rigid "upper blocks", axial column impacts, jolts, blah de blah...all nonsense.


If you're not aware of ROOSD, there's plenty threads both here and at the911forum.

No excuse for the "hamster-wheel" going on here.

 

[DGM]

I have yet to see a twoofer offer up a "yes" or "no" answer to the OP. Perhaps this is why the "movement" has failed so spectacularly?

The problem is, if they answer yes or no to a question, the issue will stop there. They need to keep this going long enough so people will wake-up and allow a new investigation. Then (and only then) they will have the proof they need to show they were right all along.

 

[DGM]

Rigid "upper blocks", axial column impacts, blah de blah...all nonsense.

Not if you're working on a limiting model.